[ExI] Transhumanism from first principles

[Giu1i0 Pri5c0]

Interesting observations. But why do we have to choose? I want more
AND better. Also, more implies the possibility of better (of course it
implies also the possibility of worse), and better requires more
option to choose from.
G.

On Nov 4, 2007 4:00 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Natasha Vita-More once defined H+ as "the commitment to overcoming human
> limits in all forms," it is the deepest commitment to self-creation
> requiring the most serious mind, whether the consequences be the dreaded
> cancer that fills reality full of forms, or the equally and oppositely
> unwarranted complacency that (I suspect) has fallen over the >H
> community as of late, that serves as a minima on the Great Unfolding of
> reality. Striking the 'right' rate is tricky, and hopefully this can
> serve to stimulate some minds.
>
> As Neo put it in the original script to The Matrix:
> > I believe that to be truly free, truly free, you cannot change your
> > cage. You have to change yourself.
> http://fusionanomaly.net/matrix.html
>
> There has been discussion in the past on the transient nature of the
> self. We are continuously being recreated again and again. Is it not
> within our reach to tap into this recreation process (the change) and
> tell the unfolding story of individual selves as we mean to?
>
> >From 1995 came "The Truth" said to be essentially transhumanist:
> > The wise among us accept their true identity as being part of a
> > growing god, and they attempt to live aligned with the godward path of
> > our growing universe by always making choices that help themselves and
> > all others become their most godlike.
> http://web.archive.org/web/19970212041820/www.the-truth.com/summary.html
>
> And in 1989 began the Silicon (Br)/otherhood:
> > Now we, the initiators, explorers, guardians and even exploiters of
> > the Silicon awareness revolution are concerned about its uses and
> > abuses, and above all, acknowlegde its potential for growing awareness
> > and human transcedence. We owe today's hackers and whiz- kids, and
> > ourselves, the opportunity to follow the Silicon Path, becoming the
> > magi(cians) and mystics of our times. If the computer is nothing but
> > another way to get in touch with the ultimate reality (and what else
> > could it be), it needs some `small' br/others to safeguard that path.
> http://www.net.info.nl/myster/school/brtherh.htm
>
> Neverness (1988):
> > I am not interested in things getting better; what I want is more:
> > more human beings, more dreams, more history, more consciousness, more
> > suffering, more joy, more disease, more agony, more rapture, more
> > evolution, more life.
> http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Cultural/Art/zindell.html
>
> However: from my observations of transhumanists, while some want more
> (in the information theoretic, programmed, thermodynamical, or
> complexity sense), others seem to want things to be Better, for the
> universe and reality to be other than it is, in a much more 'social'
> sense.
>
> I understand and respect that there exists a diversity of forms, and
> this diversity is important, yes, but it still irks me as to how H+ has
> become a playground encompassing more than was originally, perhaps,
> intended. Wouldn't H+ imply the transcension beyond good/bad and in its
> place the responsibility of caretaker, of programmer-scientist,
> storyteller, of change agent?
>
> Ultimately I suspect that there are some first principles from which
> transhumanism can be derived and if not, something close to it. These
> first principles would be able to give us a glimpse into whether or
> not 'ethics' and 'morality' are truly needed at the core of
> transhumanist philosophy.
>
> - Bryan
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>